For me to "dredge this up again"? Nice. I believe this language is what "dredged it up again": it was irresponsible... to "suggest" something as a means to accomplish your... end game; especially when such suggestions had no foundation. Recognize those words? They're yours: and to what were you referring exactly, if it wasn't the thing you're now accusing me of "dredging up"? Damn, that's smug. That's fair. You finally arrived at that a day and a half later, but not before needlessly accusing others of things they didn't do. And, even though you claim this is your point of view, time and time again since then you've misrepresented that exchange in other posts with sarcastic little quips. Yet, I'm "dredging" it up. Practice what you preach. Or, stop telling others what to post.
In this case, I think he's right. MadMax (aka MM) made a comment about it earlier today or late yesterday.
If one doesn't want things "dredged up", one ought to avoid things like: --bringing it up oneself (misrepresented, no less) in one's own posts on multiple occasions --attacking someone's character or misrepresenting someone's takes in the first place. Tell you what, Ric--as I really do for the most part respect your takes on things around here: I'll drop it if you will. I won't even pile on about how your own recent speculations have been spectactularly shot down by recent events. I promise you, however, the next time I see you post about that take and misrepresent it, I'll jump on it again. Not acknowledging the times you've given it a sharp sarcastic barb in your takes? Predictable. Will you acknowledge that you have?
Wait, and I didn't even bring it up--you did!! Holy crap, Ric! Look at the order of the posts--yours came before mine. Honestly--are you being purposefully antagonistic? I brought it up once. Now, if my joking around about the picture at the website came across mean-spirited, just tell me. I meant it as good-natured ribbing.
and MM dredged this up; not me. so, twice in a week, once by you; once by MM. but, sure, i'll move on... exactly one post later: and that doesn't cite the numerous other little digs you guys have been taking at a now long-dead horse of a topic over the past several weeks...
You're quoting MM but saying I did it. Nice. How about the numerous little digs you're been taking as well? Because you have. Always pointing fingers, but why not shoulder some responsibility? I've already said "I'll let it go if you will, but bring it up again, and it's on." But I shouldn't have; I should have just shut up. It's just hard to see someone whipping others around about some glorified "standard" and then not adhering to it himself.
How is the picture related? Wait a minute... The picture was a dig solely a dig at your theory that the Texans were never going to move David Carr. It was an attempt at good-natured ribbing solely concerning that theory and how flat wrong it was, and nothing further. But, given our exchange the other day, I can see how you connected them. Whether or not you believe me, that was the furthest thing from my mind. At least now I know where you're coming from. Please accept my apologies for appearing to pile on--it was only meant to be good-natured ribbing.
yes; i was responding to him bringing it up; my intention wan't for you to jump in and once again stir this up with a now two-month old little grudge, or whatever you want to call it. so much for that... such as...? yes, you should have... a week ago, before your little "i've been waiting two months for this moment!" post cited above. once more: do you realize that discussion is now two months old? yeah, started january 25. and yes, msn - i was challenging a poster (you) that i respected to do more than swim in the pool of LCD. if i thought you were a typical slack-jaw, richard justice reading poster of no concern or intellect, i never would have called you out on what i thought was needless speculation that added uncessary fuel to an already raging fire. i must have missed a post; i have NO IDEA what you're talking about. what dig?
Also on the flipside, if we trade Carr before getting Schaub, then we have less leverage trading with Atlanta because they know we need someone.
That is true. But do you think that Atlanta didn't know we were looking for someone? But you do make a good point, it could've driven up their asking price even more (which was pretty steep already, but I like the gamble we took)
looking at these posts, it's clear i've started something. i'd edit it out to delete it..but the damage is done. sorry if i pissed anyone off.
You really pissed me off. Frankly, I'm not sure if this relationship can move forward or not. You crossed the line.
